Pleasant v. Thorne-Begland et al, No. 3:2014cv00525 - Document 28 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Please Read Opinion for Details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 06/17/2016. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. Thorne-Begland et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. TRACY THORNE-BEGLAND, ^ 3:14CV525 al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jeffrey A. Pleasant, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and m forma pauperis, has filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.^ The matter U.S.C. is before §§ 1915(e)(2) the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 and 1915A. I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1) a relief claim on which "is frivolous" may be or (2) "fails to state granted." 28 U.S.C. ^ The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable injured in an action at law . . . . 42 U.S.C. § to the party 1983. Dockets.Justia.com § 1915(e)(2); includes ^ claims theory,'" The U.S.C. based upon § 1915A. "'an The first indisputably standard meritless legal or claims where the "'factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" 1992) 28 Clay v. Yates, (quoting Neitzke v. second standard is dismiss under Fed. R. "A motion sufficiency of a P. Supp. Williams, the Civ. to 809 490 U.S. familiar P. 417, 427 319, standard (E.D. 327 for a Va. (1989)). motion to 12(b)(6). dismiss complaint; under Rule 12(b)(6) importantly, contests surrounding the facts, applicability of defenses." it does the merits of a tests not the resolve claim, or the Repxiblican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is plaintiff. Cir. 1993); applies viewed see also Martin, to factual considering a identifying pleadings Ashcroft V. the light most favorable to the Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th only conclusions, in motion are Iqbal, not 980 allegations, to dismiss that, 662, to 679 952. however, can because entitled 556 U.S. F.2d at choose they the are This principle and to no assumption (2009). "a court begin more of by than truth." The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require [ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' notice of what the rests.'" . Bell Atl. . in order to 41, 47 with complaints "formulaic Id. Corp. (1957)). v. Twombly, containing only recitation of level," "to id. "plausible raise its "conceivable." a Id. cannot "labels elements Instead, right (citation on the fair 544, to id. 555 Gibson, satisfy this and of (2007) standard conclusions" a cause 355 of or a action." a plaintiff must allege facts relief omitted), face," 550 U.S. (quoting Conley v. Plaintiffs (citations omitted). sufficient the defendant , claim is and the grounds upon which i t (second alteration in original) U.S. 'give above stating at 570, a the speculative claim rather that than is merely "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference misconduct alleged." Corp., 550 U.S. survive must or] 761, that Iqbal, at 556). dismissal for the defendant 556 U.S. at 678 In order for a failure to is state liable for (citing Bell Atl. claim or complaint to a claim, the plaintiff "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of her claim." 765 Bass v. (4th Cir. 2003) DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., F.3d 193, 213 270, (4th Cir. 2002)). 281 (4th Cir. E.I. 2002); lodice v. Lastly, the United States, while the Court [his F.3d 309 289 F.3d liberally construes 1151 and that pro se (4th Cir. develop, the 1978), sua inmate complaint. 1997) complaints, 1278 failed his individuals Attorney Deputy for (4th Cir. a raise Carroll, 107 574 F.2d 1147, inmate's advocate constitutional on the face F.3d 241, 243 claims of his (4th Cir. City of Hampton, 775 1985). SXJMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS Pleasant Defendants: Richmond, Commonwealth's Amirshahi, clearly to Complaint, as and concurring); Beaudett v. II. In Leeke, statutory See Brock v. F.2d 1274, v. i t will not act as the sponte, (Luttig, J., Gordon has Shannon Virginia; Attorney court-appointed L. named Taylor, Tracy for the following Commonwealth's Thorne-Begland. Richmond, attorney; Virginia; and Judge Chief Ali J. Margaret Spencer of the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. (Compl. 7-11, ECF No. 1.)^ The Court provides the following summary of Pleasant's allegations. On January 24, two robberies, two robberies and two convicted felon." 2000, use Pleasant was of counts a of (Compl. documented as Case Nos. "charged with committing firearm in possession H 13.) (CR00-362-F), the of a These commission firearm charges (CR00-363-F), by of a "were (CR00-364-F) ^ The Court employs the pagination assigned to the Complaint by the CM/ECF docketing system. The Court corrects the spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in quotations from the Complaint. and {CROO-F-1026, 6, 2000, CROO-F-1027} , for a {CROO-F-2016 District through -1028)." the Attorney On March 13, General District Nos. On March preliminary examination regarding "certified Court Commonwealth's (Id.) (Id.) Pleasant appeared in the General District Court for the City of Richmond Nos. {CROO-P-1028)." Court offenses Shannon 2000, H 15.) L, Taylor for a Court Attorney Circuit not the H 16.) offenses Shannon L. to Taylor Court, object." in the Manchester preliminary examination "certified Commonwealth's The General did Pleasant appeared (CR00-362-F through -364-F)." District to "Case "for Case The General Circuit did not Court; object." (Id.) On March County, 25, 2000, Virginia. Pleasant (Id. H was 17.) indicted On in August Chesterfield 1, 2000, Chesterfield County, Pleasant was "tried and convicted . one count of robbery and one count of use of a commission of a felony." (Id. sheriff . . Richmond turned f 19.) of . Marshals." Court, on (Id. federal exact 1 20.) 18.) The Pleasant . for firearm in the next over to day, "the the U.S. The Marshals brought Pleasant to this where he was informed "that he was about to be arraigned indictments Subsequently, the t . in handed down February 25, 2000." (Id.) Pleasant "learned that he was being prosecuted for same state offenses, under 'Project Exile.'" (Id. On December 12, (Id. 21.) guilty." Pleasant to 622 indicated that 2000, a federal On May 22, months of jury 2001, this Court incarceration. the Circuit Court "found (Id.) many discovered that challenges . . . the to "Pleasant found that in Commonwealth's willing . to . . (Id. order committed. the Circuit offenses on July 19, 2000." contradictory and false." H 23.) to This Court (Id. H 22.) arrest, did not Pleasant dismiss the On September 9, 2010, maintain in a (Id. state Court Attorney say things sentenced for the City of Richmond had "dismissed the state offenses on July 19, 2000." "After Pleasant Tracy the fraud Thorne-Begland Motion to Vacate H 24.)^ that was was that were On March 14 and 19, 2013, Circuit Court Judge Margaret Spencer "issued orders saying that the H 25.)^ offenses Pleasant regarding made. state the were asserts dismissal of dismissed that the March Judge state 6, 2000." Spencer's charges was (Id. statement fraudulently (Id.) Pleasant now claims those similarly "that he was situated pursuant treated differently than to the initiation and ^ Pleasant refers to the Motion to Dismiss Thorne-Begland filed concerning a motion to vacate a void judgment Pleasant had filed in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. (Compl. Ex. B, ECF No. 1-1 at 2-5.) ^ These Orders dismissed a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pleasant has filed in the December 11, 2012. Circuit Court (Compl. Ex. D, for the City of Richmond ECF No. 1-1 at 11-14.) on furtherance (Id. of 27.) the PROJECT EXILE law enforcement initiative." The Court construes Pleasant's Complaint to raise the following claims: Pleasant's rights to due process® and equal protection® under the Fourteenth Amendment were Claim One; violated when: (a) Defendant Taylor "unilaterally withdrew case nos. {CR00-362-F through -3 62-F) March 2, 2000, pursuant to the furtherance of the Project Exile law enforcement initiative, without informing Plaintiff that he would not be prosecuted in state jurisdiction prior to the two preliminary examinations March 6, and March 13, 2000." (Id. H 30.) (b) Defendant Thorne-Begland "made false and contradictory allegations in a Motion to Dismiss filed September 9, 2010 . . . [by] plac [ing] on record the presumption that all 6 offenses were heard in Richmond City Circuit Court on March 6, 2000 and dismissed on July 19, 2000, which statements are untrue." (Id. f 31.) (c) Defendant Spencer "denied him habeas corpus relief, alleging falsely that on March 6, 2000, on motion of the Commonwealth's Attorney the Circuit Court dismissed the offenses against the Plaintiff." (Id. ^ 32.) Defendant Amirshahi violated Pleasant's rights to Claim Two: due process and effective assistance of counsel' under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when Amirshahi "abandoned him without insuring that he ^ "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, amend. XIV, without due process of . . U.S. Const, § l. ® "No State shall jurisdiction amend. XIV, law . the equal . . . deny to any person within its protection of the laws." U.S. Const, § l. ' "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right U.S. . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Const, amend. VI. was lawfully discharged from state prosecution by order of the Circuit Court Judge." Claim Three: Defendants Taylor, (Id. H 33.) Thorne-Begland, and Spencer "have all engaged in committing extrinsic fraud, and fraud on the U.S. District Court pursuant to the initiation, furtherance and in maintaining the presumption of correctness in the Project Exile law enforcement initiative, as it was applied and furthered in Pleasant's case. The defendants acting in concert and collusion, so as to deny and deprive plaintiff of his 5th, 6th, and 14th Amend. rights under the U.S. Constitution. Pleasant was not provided with notice that the alleged six 6 state felony offenses were withdrawn on alleged March 6, 2000. . . . There exists that Pleasant was notice to be heard evidence that shows afforded opportunity or a for the alleged (6) felony offenses." (I^ H 34 .} Defendants Claim Four: no Taylor, Thorne-Begland, and Spencer "failed and refused to coordinate with each other when they knew that Pleasant had been deprived of his constitutional rights. And they all worked together to deny him any kind of relief . . . ." (Id. H 36.) Claim Five; Defendant Amirshahi "failed and refused to involve himself in continuing to represent Pleasant in aid of him pursuing his statutory and constitutional rights . . . ." Claim Six: Defendants failed to (Id. H 37.) ensure that Pleasant's rights under the Sixth's Amendment's guarantee of a speedy trial,® the Speedy Trial Act, Interstate violated. Pleasant seeks Agreement on Detainers (Id. 11 38-40.) declaratory monetary damages. and injunctive Act relief, as and the were well not as (Id. 11 41-49.) ® "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a VI. speedy and public trial . . . ."U.S. Const, amend. Ill, A. ANALYSIS Pleasant's Conspiracy Claims In Claims Three and Four, Pleasant suggests that the named Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. Taylor, In Claim Thorne-Begland, collusion, Pleasant that Spencer and asserts "act[ed] in Defendants concert so as to deny and deprive plaintiff of his 5th, and 14th Amend, H 34.) Three, rights In Claim Four, under the U.S. Constitution." Pleasant alleges that and 6th, (Compl. these Defendants "worked together to deny him any kind of relief where they all had an opportunity to do so . . . ." (Id. H 36.) To establish a civil conspiracy under § 1983, allege facts indicating that Taylor, Pleasant must Thorne-Begland, and Spencer "acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of in [the] conspiracy which resulted in which resulted deprivation of a constitutional right." of Clarksburg, Hafner v. end. the W. Va. , Brown, Pleasant agreement or a 983 must 81 F.3d 416, F.2d 570, allege 577 facts 421 'meeting of the minds' 866 1377 F.2d (4th Cir. 1175, 1181 1995) (9th 1992)). plausibly Simmons v. (quoting Caldeira v. Cir. 1989)). makes only conclusory allegations of a 1996} (citing To this suggest "an by defendants to violate the claimant's constitutional rights." 1370, (4th Cir. (4th Cir. that Hinkle v. City "Where Poe, 47 F.3d Cty. of Kauai, the complaint conspiracy under § 1983 and fails to demonstrate any agreement or meeting of the minds among the defendants, complaint." 1996) the court Brown v. Angelone, may properly dismiss the 93 8 F. Supp. 34 0, 346 (W. D. Va. (citations omitted). Here, Pleasant merely alleges that Taylor, Thorne-Begland, and Spencer conspired to deny Pleasant of his Fifth, Fourteenth Pleasant Amendment provide rights. any facts Nowhere that in his plausibly Sixth, Complaint suggest that and does these Defendants "formed any type of agreement or acted in concert to injure him." played a Id. part "The in the unity of purpose." mere events Id. fact is that not each of sufficient For this reason. these to actors show such a Claims Three and Four will be dismissed. B. Amirshahi Is Not Amenable To Suit Under § In order to state a 1983 viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of either a right conferred by a Total Action Against 658 (4th attorneys Cir. law of Poverty 1998) the in (citing constitutional right or a United Roanoke 42 U.S.C. States. Valley, § See Dowe 145 1983). F.3d v. 653, Private and public defenders do not act under color of state or federal authority when they represent defendants in criminal proceedings. (1981) ("[A] See, e.g. , Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 public defender does not act under color of state 10 law when performing a to a 685 defendant in a F.2d attorneys 1098, do criminal proceeding."); 1099 not representing lawyer's traditional functions as counsel (9th act Cir. under clients). 1982) color of (holding state Accordingly, Cox v. or Hellerstein, that private federal Pleasant's law when claims against Amirshahi will be dismissed. C. Claims Against Judge Spencer Judges acts are committed Sparkman, 435 whom within U.S. immunity exists in absolutely immune their 349, from suits under judicial 355-56 § 1983 discretion. (1978). Stump "Absolute for v. judicial 'because i t is recognized that judicial officers discretion is entrusted must discretion vigorously and effectively, be able to exercise without apprehension that they will be subjected to burdensome and vexatious litigation.'" Lesane v. Va. Spencer, Dec. 3, 2 009) 456 Maryland, grounds, No. F.2d Pink v. 3:09CV012, 2009 WL 4730716, (citations 1, 3 (4th Lester, 52 omitted) Cir. F.3d Judges are entitled to immunity even if in error, was authority . . apply to those actions done . maliciously, (quoting 1972) 73, or immunity: "though (1) judicial absence of all jurisdiction." (4th was in on Cir. v. other 1995)). nature, excess of his Only two exceptions actions, taken Mireles v. Waco, 11 (E.D. "the action he took was nonjudicial in *2 McCray overruled 77 Stump, 435 U.S. at 356. judicial at in and (2) complete 502 U.S. 9, 11- 12 (1991) {citation omitted). Because Pleasant fails to allege facts suggesting that either exception applies in this instance, his claims against Judge Spencer will be dismissed. D. Claims Against Taylor and Thorne-Begland Pleasant seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, Prosecutorial from Defendants immunity, however, Taylor bars and Thorne-Begland. Pleasant's claims monetary damages against Taylor and Thorne-Begland. V. Pachtman, extends to 424 U.S. actions 409, taken functions of an advocate," (1997) (citations 430 (1976). while Kalina v. omitted), as process." specific courts Imbler, action employ advocacy falls a from 424 U.S. functional as 430. the ambit approach, administrative traditional functions To 118, that and are whether protected distinguishing duties 131 the criminal ascertain of immunity 522 U.S. judicial phase of at within "the Fletcher, well "intimately associated with the See Imbler Prosecutorial performing for a conduct, acts investigative of tasks unrelated "to an advocate's preparation for the initiation of a prosecution Fitzsimmons, V. Burch, immunity preparing or for 509 U.S. 34 F.3d protects for the judicial 259, 257, those 273 proceedings." (1993) 261-63 "acts initiation (citation omitted); (4th Cir. undertaken of 12 Buckley judicial 1994). by a Carter Absolute prosecutor proceedings v. or in for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State." Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273. Pleasant seeks to hold Taylor liable for failing to inform Pleasant "that he would not be prosecuted in state jurisdiction prior to the two preliminary examinations March 6, 2000." (Compl. H 30.) and March 13, Pleasant seeks to hold Thorne-Begland liable for making allegedly "false and contradictory allegations in a Motion to Dismiss filed September 9, 2010" regarding the prior dismissal of Pleasant's state charges in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond. (Id. H 31.) Pleasant, however, fails to allege facts suggesting that Taylor and Thorne-Begland acted outside of their roles as advocates for the Commonwealth Virginia. See Springmen v. Williams, Cir. 1997) ("The doctrine of absolute immunity squarely covers a prosecutor's Carter, decision 34 F.3d at 263 been completed, State in . . . forward claims monetary with a 212-13 (4th prosecution."); (explaining that "although the trial had functions in representing the post-conviction the are foreclosed, go [the prosecutor's] implicated for to 122 F.3d 211, of judicial process damages motions . against . . ."). Taylor . . Thus, and very much Pleasant's Thorne-Begland and will be dismissed. Nevertheless, "prosecutors are not requests for declaratory Marsico, 340 F. App'x or 778, injunctive 779 13 (3d Cir. immune from suit as relief." 2009) to Blakeney v. (citing Supreme Court of Va. (1980); Consumers Union of Jorden v. 1986}). and V. Nat'l Guard Bureau, As explained below, injunctive the U.S., relief 446 U.S. 799 F.2d 99, 719, 110 736 {3d Cir. Pleasant's requests for declaratory against Taylor and Thorne-Begland are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Under 28 U.S.C. which the relevant V. Harris, 2012) No. § 1915(e)(2), statute of 3:10CV613, 2006) ; 951, (4th 955 limitations for borrow relevant state. 471 U.S. 261, 42 v. U.S.C. injury Nasim, 266-69 at *1 Md. 1983 no of 64 F.3d at 955 (1985)). (E.D. Va. of § 8.01-243(A) filed his claims (West 2015). limitations accrued. "A claim aware of his or her injury. Ill, 123 (1979), apples 2009) Hence, 3:08CV138, when courts from a the two-year See Va. Code should have the plaintiff Kubrick, 'is put on notice 2009 WL 2424084, claim exists." at *4 becomes 444 U.S. ... to Almond (E.D. Va. Aug. (quoting Nasim, 64 F.3d at 955). 14 of from when the underlying as to whether a (omission in original) Pleasant United States v. or when he or she make reasonable inquiry' V. Sisk, No. accrues F.3d (citing Wilson v. Garcia, Virginia Complaint within two years 64 the 3, 655-57 statute exists, statute of limitations to personal injury claims. Ann. Jan. Corr., explicit actions statute Brown 440 F.3d 648, House Because § clearly bars. Johnson, Warden, 1995)). personal the S.A. Nasim v. Cir. limitations 2012 WL 12383, (citing Eriline Co. (4th Cir. the Court must dismiss claims 6, Pleasant filed (Compl. 18.) his Thus, for Complaint Pleasant's Thorne-Begland to be timely, after July 18, 2012. facts indicating Thorne-Begland Pleasant have accrued challenges been aware Accordingly, of, at because Thorne-Begland or actions are claims 18, against 2014.® Taylor and the Complaint fails to allege any Pleasant's on July the claims must have accrued on or However, that on claims before July taken by the untimely 18, them latest, Pleasant's against claims 2012. that in Taylor and Instead, Pleasant 2000 and would 2010. Taylor and Pleasant's filed, against claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against these Defendants will be dismissed. E. Pleasant's Action Is Malicious And Frivolous Pleasant has inundated post-conviction motions and the petitions convictions and state charges. No. 3:14CV144 No. 3:14CV266 No. (E.D. (E.D. 3:12CV731, United 2950522, States at *1 Va. Va. Nov. Nov. Court See, 26, 26, Pleasant, (E.D. Va. June e.g., 2014); Nos. 13, numerous challenging 2014); 2014 WL 353405, at *1-2 v. with frivolous his federal Pleasant v. Clarke, Pleasant Pleasant v. V. Clarke, Cuccinelli, (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2014); 3:00CR71, 2013) . 3:13CV289, 2013 WL Having met with no ® Pleasant certifies that he mailed a copy of his Complaint to the Court on that day. See Lewis v. Richmond Cty. Police Pep't, 947 F.2d 733, 736 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding inmate's civil action was filed for statute of limitation purposes when handed to prison officials for filing). 15 success. Pleasant Court finds faith to has that filed Pleasant vindicate his the instant fails legal to action. bring rights, this but However, action instead the in good brings it maliciously to harass the prosecutors responsible for ultimately moving for the dismissal of Pleasant's state responding to Pleasant's state court filings, charges and the Circuit Court judge who entered orders denying Pleasant's state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Pleasant on the and the defense attorney who represented state dismisses this Virginia, 982 F. omitted) (observing charges. action as Accordingly, malicious Supp. 1132, that and 1136-38 where the frivolous. Court See (E.D. Va. 1997) "the tone of also Cain v. (citations [a prisoner] Plaintiff's allegations indicates that he is bringing his suit merely to satisfy his desire for vengeance involved in securing his incarceration] wrong done to him, Spencer v. Rhodes, against and not to rectify any then the suit is a MALICIOUS one" 656 F. Supp. 1987))) . 16 458, [those 363-64 (E.D.N.C. (quoting Mar. 19, IV. For dismissed. the foregoing The action CONCLUSION reasons, will be Pleasant's dismissed. claims The will Clerk will be be directed to note the disposition of the action for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant. /s/ Payne Date; t: Robert E. Richmon4^ Virginia Senior United States District Judge 17
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
